Pentagon witness states they did not see what hit, were told later was a 757

A Pentagon witness states they did not see what hit the Pentagon he was told later it was a 757.

I wonder how many more heard later it was a 757?

But they do talk about the C-130 being on a odd course and a black trail from its engines.

www.geocities.com...

NAME: Scott P. Cook

LOCATION: fifth floor of the Portals building, at 1280 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington DC, the southernmost building at the end of 14th Street, right at the Tidal Basin and Maine Avenue

TESTIMONY: "We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight. ... As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House. All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Scott Cook was across the Potomac river from the Pentagon and wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all according to the official flight path even though he had virtually the best possible view you could have from DC.

Here is his location:




And here is the view from his office window:




His account of the c-130 coming in about a minute later and flying near the smoke plume matches what the pilot Steve O'Brien claims but completely contradicts alleged C-130 witness Keith Wheelhouse.


We believe Scott Cook is 100% genuine.

He demonstrates how little people in DC would be able to see even if they were paying close attention to the skies as Scott was.


p.s. Why can't I post images hosted on photobucket anymore?









[edit on 7-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
His account of the c-130 coming in about a minute later and flying near the smoke plume matches what the pilot Steve O'Brien claims but completely contradicts alleged C-130 witness Keith Wheelhouse.

p.s. Why can't I post images hosted on photobucket anymore?

Question is why were the C-130 engines giving off a smoke trial ? Was the pilot pushing the C-130 too hard?

Or was he seeing something other then engine smoke?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I'm not aware that this is out of the ordinary or expected for a standard propeller engined cargo plane.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I'm not aware that this is out of the ordinary or expected for a standard propeller engined cargo plane.

Maybe for a gas engine, but not for a turbo prop.

typical truthiness

"We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon,


I don't think too many people could identify the type of jet liner it was at the speed it was going

this thread should be put right in the dumper

ALL C-130s leave a faint smoke trail. I've seen it for years. It's usually a faint brown color.

It doesn't always come through well in pictures because it's so diffuse, but here are a few of them in flight to try to show it.




It's VERY clear in this picture.

I have no reason to doubt Scott Cook at all.

We had a good email exchange with him where he clarified everything he saw.

As I said he did not see the plane at all and even missed the explosion.

The flyover would have been well on it's way by the time he was watching again.

So does anyone know why we can't post images anymore?

You can provided you are hosting them, or they're you're pictures. There were issues with hotlinking, so they made it to where you have to save them, upload them to a hosting site, and then put different tags on them to hotlink them. There are a couple threads about it, but I don't have them off hand.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It doesn't always come through well in pictures because it's so diffuse, but here are a few of them in flight to try to show it.

Well it must have been pretty thick for him to see at any distance.

I used to be able to see it at a mile or more. It's fairly diffuse, but it's also pretty obvious if you're looking at it in person. It's just like the TF-33 engines. They left a trail that was obvious at 2 miles, but you could see through it pretty easily.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I used to be able to see it at a mile or more. It's fairly diffuse, but it's also pretty obvious if you're looking at it in person. It's just like the TF-33 engines. They left a trail that was obvious at 2 miles, but you could see through it pretty easily.

I was a crew chief in the Air Force and have been to several airshows, and i did not see smoke trails that were that bad from C-130s.

Its still strange for the flight path and how fast it got to Flight 93 crash site.

The F-4 is probably the biggest smoker at low altitude.

So it has to be bad for someone to notice it? A person that isn't used to seeing it is going to notice it an comment on it, not knowing that it's normal. I remember the first few times I really noticed it. I had already been working on the flightline for years at that point, but it still took me by surprise and made me think he had an engine problem.

Smoking C-130

Originally posted by Boone 870

Smoking C-130

Very light smoke and can only be seen for a short time at a close distance.

It is a LOT harder to see it on a picture or video. As I said, in person I could see it for a mile or more when they were on final approach. Cameras have a harder time picking it up than the eye does.

Another smoking C-130.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Another smoking C-130.

You guys have not seen anything smoke untill you see an F-4. In fact the F-4 society calls it newsletter Smoketrails.

So back to the question. How many more witnesses were told afterwords it was a 757 ?

[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So back to the question. How many more witnesses were told afterwords it was a 757 ?

Since that was announced over the news within the first 5 minutes of the event the answer would have to be virtually all of them.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So back to the question. How many more witnesses were told afterwords it was a 757 ?

Since that was announced over the news within the first 5 minutes of the event the answer would have to be virtually all of them.

Witnesses precede news reports. This was never even an issue:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...